FROM: i BALDeI WARD JEAN. THE ECSIAN OF COMMOSICAUON . ED. SUYVERE LOTEIN GER 10 Introd TRANS . BERNARD AND CAPOUAE ScHuTzE | manner and has always existed. Therefore I can only conceive of speaking of it in terms of simulation, much in the same manner that Borges reconstitutes a lost civilization through the fragments of a library. In other words, I can hardly examine the question of socio- logical verisimilitude, to which, moreover, I only answer with the greatest of difficulty; rather I must put myself in the place of an imaginary traveler who stumbles upon these writings as upon a lost manuscript and who, for lack of supporting evidence, would attempt to reconstitute the society they de soribe. PARIS” Eons Gaucke , 1154 ECSTASY OF COMMUNICATION Everything began with objects, yet there is no longer a system of objects. The cri- tique of objects was based on signs saturated with meaning, along with their phantasies and unconscious logic as well as their prestigious differential logic. Behind this dual logic lies the anthropological dream: the dream of the object as existing beyond and above exchange and use, above and beyond equivalence; the dream of a sacrificial logic, of gift, expen- diture, potlatch, “devil's share” consumption, symbolic exchange. All this still exists, and simultaneously it is disappearing. The description of this pro jective imaginary and symbolic universe was still the one of the object as the mirror of the u12 The Ecstasy of Communication subject. The opposition of the subject and the object was stil significant, as was the profound imaginary of the mirror and the scene? The scene of history as well as the scene of the everyday emerge in the shadow of history as it is progressively divested of politics. Today the ene and the mirror have given way to a sereen and @ network, There is no longer any transcendence or depth, but only the immanent surface of operations unfolding, the smooth and functional surface of communication. In the image of televison, the most beautiful pro- totypical object of this new era, the surround- ing universe and our very bodies are becoming monitoring screens. We no longer invest our objects with the same emotions, the same dreams of posses- sion, loss, mourning, jealousy; the psychologi- cal dimension has been blurred, even if one can still retrieve it in the particular. Barthes already foresaw this for the car, re the logic of possession, from the projec~ tion inherent in strong subjective relation is substituted by a logic of driving. No more power, speed, appropriation phantasies linked The Ecstasy of Communication 13 to the object itself, but a potential tactic linked to its use — mastery, control and command, optimization of the game of possiblitities, which the automobile offers as a vector, and no longer as a psychological sanctuary — result- ing in the transformation of the subject himself into a driving computer, instead of the demi- urge drunk with power. The vehicle thus be- comes a bubble, the dashboard a console, and the landscape all around unfolds as a television screen. However, one can conceive of a subse- Quent stage to this one, where the car is still a performative instrument, the stage at which it becomes an informing network. That is, the car which speaks to you, which informs you spontaneously of its general state and yours (eventually refusing to function if you are not functioning well), the advising, the deliberating car, a partner in a general negotiation on life- styles; something (or someone, since at this stage there is no more difference) to which you are wired, the communication with the car becoming the fundamental stake, a perpetual test of the presence of the subject vis-d-vis his14 The Ecstasy of Communication objects — an uninterrupted interface. From here on neither speed nor travel- ing — not even the unconscious projection, competition, or prestige — count any longer. In fact the desacralization of the car has been going on for some time now in the sense that “Speed is out! Drive more and consume less. A kind of ecological ideal is taking over, an ideal of regulation, of moderate functionality, of solidarity between all the elements of one and the same system, of the control and global management of the whole. Each system (including the domestic universe) forms a kind of ecological niche, with a relational decor where all terms must remain in perpetual con- tact with one another, informed as to their re- spective strategies and that of the entire system because the failure of one term could lead to catastrophe. Although this is no doubt only a dis- course, one must take note that the analysis of consumption in the sixties and seventies origi- nated in the advertising discourse or in the pseudo-conceptual discourse of professionals. “Consumption,” the “strategy of desire” were The Ecstasy of Communication 15 at first only a metadiscourse, the analysis of a Projective myth whose real consequences were generally unknown4 Actually no more was known about the relation of people to their objects than about the reality of primitive societies. This is what allows one to build the myth, but it is also the reason why it is useless to try and objectively verify these hypotheses through statistics. As we know, the discourse of advertisers is for the use of professionals in the field, and who could say that the present discourse on computer science is not accessible strictly to professionals in computer science and communication (the discourse of intellec- tuals and sociologists, for that matter, raises the same question), Private telematics: each individual sees himself promoted to the controls of a hypothet- ical machine, isolated in a position of perfect sovereignty, at an infinite distance from his original universe; that is to say, in the same Position as the astronaut in his bubble, existing in a state of weightlessness which compels the individual to remain in perpetual orbital flight and to maintain sufficient speed in zero gravity16 The Ecstasy of Communication to avoid crashing into his planet of origin. The realization of the orbital satellite in the universe of the everyday corresponds to the clevation of the domestic universe to the celes- tial metaphor, with the orbiting of the two- roonykitchen/bathroom unit in the last lunar model; hence to the satellisation of the real itself. The everydayness of the terrestial habi- tat hypostatized in space marks the end of metaphysics, and signals the beginning of the era of hyperreality: that which was previously mentally projected, which was lived as a meta phor in the terrestial habitat is from now on projected, entirely without metaphor, into the absolute space of simulation. Our private sphere has ceased to be the stage where the drama of the subject at odds with his objects and with his image is played out: we no longer exist as playwrights or actors but as terminals of multiple networks. Tele- vision is the most direct prefiguration of this, and yet today one’s private living space is con: ceived of as a receiving and operating area, as a monitoring screen endowed with telematic power, that is to say, with the capacity to regu- The Ecstasy of Communication 17 everything by remote control. Includit the work process, within the prospects of tele- matic work performed at home, as well as con- sumption, play, social relations, leisure. One Could conceive of simulating leisure or vaca- tion situations in the same way that flight is simulated for pilots. Is this science fiction? Yes, but up un- til now all environmental mutations derived from an irreversible tendency towards a formal abstraction of elements and functions, to their homogenization into a single process, as well as to the displacement of gestural behaviors: of bodies, of efforts, in electric or electronic com- mands, to the miniaturization in time and space. These are processes where the stage (which is no longer a stage) becomes that of the infinitesimal memory and the screen, This is our problem, insofar as this clectronic encephalization, this miniaturization Of circuits and of energy, this transistorization of the environment condemn to futility, to obsolescence and almost to obscenity, all that which once constituted the stage of our lives. We know that the simple presence of television18 The Ecstasy of Communication transforms our habitat into a kind of archaic, closed-off cell, into a vestige of human rela- tions whose survival is highly questionable. From the moment that the actors and their phantasies have ceased to haunt this stage, as soon as behavior is focused on certain operational screens or terminals, the rest ap- pears only as some vast useless body, which has been both abandoned and condemned. The real itself appears as a large, futile, body The cra of miniaturization, of remote control, and of a microprocessing of time, bod- ies, and pleasure has come. There is no longer an ideal principle of these things on a human scale. All that remains are miniaturized, con- centrated and immediately available effects. This change of scale is discernable every- where: the human body, our body, seems sup- erfluous in its proper expanse, in the complex- ity and multiplicity of its organs, of its tissue and functions, because today everything is con- centrated in the brain and the genetic code, which alone sum up the operational definition of being. The landscape, the immense geo- phical landscape seems a vast, barren body sstasy of Communication 19 whose very expanse is unnecessary (even off the highway it is boring to cross), from the moment that all events are concentrated in the cities, which are also being reduced to several extemely miniaturized high places. And what about time, this vast leisure time we are lef with, and which engulfs us like an empty ter- rain; an expanse rendered futile in its unfolding from the moment that the instantaneousness of communication miniaturizes our exchanges in- toa series of instants? The body as a sta stage, and time as a stage are slowly di ing. The same holds true for the public space: the theatre of the social and of politics are pro- gressively being reduced to a shapeless, multi- headed body. Advertising in its new version is no longer the baroque, utopian scenario ec- static over objects and consumption, but rather the effect of the omnipresent visibility of cor Porations, trade marks, PR men, social dia- logue and the virtues of communication. With the disappearance of the public place, advertis- ing invades everything (the street, the mon- ument, the market, the stage, language). It20 The Ecstasy of Communication determines architecture and the creation of super-objects such as Beaubourg, Les Halles or La Villette’ — which are literally advertising monuments (or anti-monuments) — not so much because they are centered on consump- tion, but because from the outset these mon- uments were meant to be a demonstration of the operation of culture, of the cultural operation of the commodity and that of the masses in movement. Today our only archi- tecture is just that: huge screens upon which moving atoms, particles and molecules are refracted, The public stage, the public place ‘ave been replaced by a gigantic circulation, ventilation, and ephemeral connecting space. The private space undergoes the same fate. Its disappearance parallels the diminish- ing of the public space. Both have ceased to be either spectacle or secret. ‘The distinction be- tween an interior and an exterior, which was just what characterized the domestic stage of objects and that of a symbolic space of the ob- ject has been blurred in a double obscenity. ‘The most intimate operation of your life be comes the potential grazing ground of the me The Ecstasy of Communication 21 dia (non-stop television on the Louds family in the USA,$ endless “slice of life” and “psy” shows on French TV). The entire universe also unfolds unnecessarily on your home screen, This is a microscopic pomography, pomogr: phic because it is forced, exaggerated, just li the close-up of sexual acts in a porno film, All this destroys the stage, once preserved through @ minimal distance and which was based on a secret ritual known only to its actors. The private universe was certainly ali- enating, insofar as it separated one from others, from the world in which it acted as a protective enclosure, as an imaginary protector. Yet it also contained the symbolic benefit of alienation (the fact that the other exists) and that otherness can be played out for better or for worse. Thus the consumer society was lived under the sign of alienation; it was a Society of spectacle — but at least there was spectacle, and the spectacle, even if alienated, is never obscene.” Obscenity begins when there is no more spectacle, no more stage, no more theatre, no more illusion, when every-thing becomes immediately transparent, visible,Ecstasy of Communication exposed in the raw and inexorable light of information and communication. i We no longer partake of the drama © alienation, but are in the ecstasy of communi cation. And this ecstasy is obscene. Obscene is that which eliminates the gaze, the image and every representation, Obscenity is not confined to sexuality, because today there is @ pornography of information and communica tion, a pornography of circuits and networks, of functions and objects in their legibilit availability, regulation, forced signification, capacity to perform, connection, polyvale their free expression. It is no longer the obscenity of the hid- he den, the repressed, the obscure, but that visible, the all-too-visible, the more-visible- than-visible; it is the obscenity of that which no longer contains a secret and is entirely soluble in information and communication. Marx already denounced the obscenity of the commodity, which is linked to the prin- ciple of its equivalence, to the abject principle of free circulation. The obscenity of the modity derives from the fact that it is abstract, The Ecstasy of Communication 23 formal and light in comparison with the weight, opacity and substance of the object. The commodity is legible, as opposed to the object, which never quite reveals its secret, and it manifests its visible essencé — its price. It is the locus of transcription of all possible ot Jects: through it, objects communicate — the merchant form is the first great medium of the modern world. But the message which the objects deliver is radically simplified and is always the same — their exchange value. And so, deep down the message has already ceased to exist, it is the medium which imposes itself in its pure circulation. Let us call this ecstasy the market is an ecstatic form of the circulation of goods, as prostitution and pornography are ecstatic forms of the circulation of sex. One need only carry this analysis to its full potential to grasp what has happened to transparence and the obscenity of the universe of communication, which have long surpassed the obscenities still relative to the universe of the commodity Ecstasy is all functions abolished into one dimension, the dimension of communica-24 The Ecstasy of Communication tion, All events, all spaces, all memories are abolished in the sole dimension of information this is obscene. Hot, sexual obscenity is followed by cool communicational obscenity. The former implied a form of promiscuity, a clutter of ob- jects accumulated in the private universe, or everything that remains unspoken and teeming in the silence of repression. However, this promiscuity is organic, visceral, carnal, while the promiscuity which reigns over the commu- nication networks is one of a superficial satur- ation, an endless harassment, an extermination of interstitial space, When I pick up my tele: phone the marginal network hooks me up and keeps harping at me with the unbearable good will of that which seeks and claims to commu- nicate. Deregulated radio speaks, sings, ex- presses itself.8 All very well, but in terms of the medium the result is a space — that of the FM frequency — which is saturated with ove lapping stations, so that what was once free by virtue of there having been space is no longer so, The word is free, but I am not; the space is so saturated, the pressure of all which wants to The Ecstasy of Communication 25 be heard so strong that I am no longer capable of knowing what I want. I plunge into the neg- ative ecstasy of radio. is a state particular to fascination and giddiness. It is a singular form of pleasure, perhaps, but it is aleatory and dizzying. If one goes along with Roger Caillois’ classificaton of games — mimicking, agén, alea, ilinx: mes of expression, games of competition, games of chance, games of giddiness? — then the movement of our entire culture will lead from a disappearance of the forms of expres sion and competition towards an extension of the forms of chance (alea) and giddiness. These no longer imply any game of the scene, the mirror, challenge or othemess; they are rather, ecstatic, solitary, and narcissistic. Pleasure is no longer that of the scenic or aes- thetic manifestation (seductio) but that of pure fascination, aleatory and psychotropic (subduc tio). This does not necessarily imply a nega- e judgement, since the forms of pleasure and perception undoubtedly undergo a profound and original mutation. We can hardly assess the consequences of such a transformation. In26 The Ecstasy of Communication applying our old criteria and the reflexes of a “scenic” sensibility, we run the risk of mis- construing the irruption of this new ecstatic and obscene form in our sensorial sphere. One thing is for certain: if the scene se- duced us, the obscene fascinates us. However, acy is the opposite of passion. Desire, pas- sion, seduction, or again, according to Caillois, expression and competition, are the games of the hot universe. Ecstasy, fascination, obsceni- ty (Caillois’ chance and giddiness), are games of the cold and cool universe (even giddiness is cold, especially the giddiness of drugs). In any case we will suffer from this forced extraversion of all interiority, from this forced introjection of all exteriority which is implied by the categorical imperative of com: munication. Perhaps in this case one should apply metaphors drawn from pathology. If hysteria was the pathology of the exacerbated staging of the subject — of the theatrical and operational conversion of the body — and if paranoia was the pathology of organization — of the structuring of a rigid and jealous world — then today we have entered into a new form The Ecstasy of Communication 27 hizophrenia — with the emergence of an immanent promiscuity and the perpetual in- terconhection of all information and communi- cation networks. No more hysteria, or projec- tive paranoia as such, but a state of terror which is characteristic of the schizophrenic, an over-proximity of all things, a foul promiscuity of all things which beleaguer and penetrate him, meeting with no resistance, and no halo, no aura, not even the aura of his own body Protects him. In spite of himself the schizo- Phrenic is open to everything and lives in the Most extreme confusion. He is the obscene vietim of the world’s obscenity. The schizo. Phrenic is not, as generally claimed, char- acterized by his loss of touch with reality, but by the absolute proximity to and total instanta- eousness with things, this overexposure to the transparency of the world. Stripped of a sta and crossed over without the least obstacle, the schizophrenic cannot produce the limits of his very being, he can no longer produ . 4s a mirror. He becomes a pure screen, a pure absorption and resorption surface of the influ ent networks.